Priest Anti-Soft Value?

[Reg]

ORIGINAL: fcooke

Weren't they called Grizzlys as well?

Grizzly's were Canadian built M4A1(75) Shermans.


Sextons were the Commonwealth equivalent to the M7 Priest but mounted a 25lb gun. They were also built in Canada and looked very similar but were based on the M3 (Ram) and later the M4 (Grizzly) chassis and can be be identified (apart from the gun) by the presence of battery boxes on the rear deck.

[Alpha77]

Some land unit values are "all over the place" also arrival dates wrong, most glaring examples M10, M18 and M38 TDs.. those were first send to Europe. Units in the pacific had to keep their AT GUNS (not SP) for longer before they got SPs. And M36 should perhaps arrive late 44 or early 45. Look at the date in game..except Axis in Europe would be beaten in 44 already which then frees M18/M36 for the pacific (alternate history?)

For Priest, this should be simple same value as the howitzer, except perhaps add some anti soft for the MG, ofc has armor value for chasis same as M3 but should be lower as M3 (open topped, no turret). With chasis I mean the lower part of the tank, (I forgot the English word I hope chasis can stil be understood what I mean?), if you look at Priest the upper part is quite thin armor, so there needs to be a compromise value I think. [:)]

Would be cool if some kind of project could be made going over many of these cases and a consenus could be reached in the community so all this could be corrected once and for all.
I mean plane and ships data is much better in general...probably cause the land war in this game is more rudimentary.

[Alpha77]

ORIGINAL: Nomad

The only thing that I can think of is maybe it is to model a more limited ammo supply?

1st off Priest had quite high ammo load and 2nd units with priests have motor transport attached which represent also ammo carriers. Priest should have same or even slighly higher ammo has the normal howitzer imho

[Ian R]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter





Have a question for you. I was concerned about your combining some units in conglomerates, which I presume was done to keep the total unit count manageable.

Yes - two reasons:

1- to make game play simpler and quicker; and

2- different people with different machines had, or did not have, problems getting a clean load of the scenario. Computer capability wasn't the only issue, and restraining the size of the data base seemed to help.

IIRC your scenario notes mentioned that you were unsure of what effect it might have.
I spent considerable time editing all of the conglomerate LST units back to individual ship types but the scenario would not load after doing so. I then spent considerable time editing them all back to the conglomerate units.

Negative effects include -

1- they are more vulnerable (albeit they pack a arsenal of AAA); and

2- they take longer to unload.

Personally I think that the simplification of task force assembly, and the ability to load a larger landing force (along with the reduced keying time, and risk of carpal tunnel syndrome) are enough to overcome the negatives, but some posters have been unhappy with the increased unload times.

My concern and question is will the game engine treat a conglomerate 6 ship LST unit as a single ship for combat purposes?
If one Betty can sink 6 LSTs with one torpedo the Allied fleet will be under considerably more strain in Kamikaze country.

The brief answer is yes.

However, apart from increasing the displacement and carrying capacity, I also increased durability from 5 to 30. having regard to something Alfred said about durability on the forum, that may make them more resilient to damage.

Overall, there are pros and cons. I prefer the multi-ship depiction, but can understand if someone wants to break them down to individual units. The ironic thing is that 30 years ago the dos game had multi-ship units, and "step reduction" by numbers of vessels. It is not something that survived into WITP/AE, but it does make game play faster.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

ORIGINAL: Nomad

The only thing that I can think of is maybe it is to model a more limited ammo supply?

1st off Priest had quite high ammo load and 2nd units with priests have motor transport attached which represent also ammo carriers. Priest should have same or even slighly higher ammo has the normal howitzer imho

Motorized support is shown in the game if it is available. The Prime movers of the towed artillery could also carry ammo plus the dedicated ammo haulers. Not to mention the fact that the prime mover, once the gun was in place, could also go back for more ammo.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

Some land unit values are "all over the place" also arrival dates wrong, most glaring examples M10, M18 and M38 TDs.. those were first send to Europe. Units in the pacific had to keep their AT GUNS (not SP) for longer before they got SPs. And M36 should perhaps arrive late 44 or early 45. Look at the date in game..except Axis in Europe would be beaten in 44 already which then frees M18/M36 for the pacific (alternate history?)

For Priest, this should be simple same value as the howitzer, except perhaps add some anti soft for the MG, ofc has armor value for chasis same as M3 but should be lower as M3 (open topped, no turret). With chasis I mean the lower part of the tank, (I forgot the English word I hope chasis can stil be understood what I mean?), if you look at Priest the upper part is quite thin armor, so there needs to be a compromise value I think. [:)]

Would be cool if some kind of project could be made going over many of these cases and a consenus could be reached in the community so all this could be corrected once and for all.
I mean plane and ships data is much better in general...probably cause the land war in this game is more rudimentary.

The lower part of the chassis would be the "hull" but I also understood what you meant when you used the term chassis.

In Europe, the Axis was not beaten in 1944, consider the Ardennes Offensive in December 1944 that was commonly referred to as the Battle Of The Bulge.

That battle is not to be confused with any attempt to lose weight around the mid section of the human body.

[HansBolter]

IanR,

Thanks again for the detailed explanation on your mod design decisions.

For the longest time I was unable to get the scenario to load because I was using a minimal platform.

About six years ago I spent a considerable sum building a meg-platform that crashed and burned shortly after the build.
I was so excited about building it that I heavily advertised the effort in an OT thread here.
Following the build I had one lock-up problem after another and became so frustrated I stuck the machine in a store room and let it sit for almost three years while I lived with a minimal off the shelf machine that would not load the scenario.

I later changed jobs just a year and a half prior to retiring, going to work for a friend who builds his own platforms and swears by liquid cooling, that he custom builds. He pointed out that my issue with the mega-platform was likely overheating that could be solved by swapping out the large heat pipe radiator with an off the shelf closed loop liquid cooler.

Sure enough, that was the problem and it was solved. I had failed to do the proper research on the AMD 8-core CPU, learning later that it is extremely heat sensitive. The platform, while a bit dated now with DDR3 ram, is still a monster performer and it was easily able to load the scenario. However, after editing all of the conglomerate ship types back to individual ships, even this platform with 4.7ghz 8-core CPU, 32gbs of DDR3 ram and a 6gb graphics card, would not load it.

The guy I worked for built the most awesome machine I have ever seen to be dedicated to crunching numbers to create animated videos of building designs. It had a 32-core AMD processor, 128gbs of DDR4 ram and a 32gb graphics card. It has an external radiator for the liquid cooling system. Just awesome.

[Ian R]

How fast does it process a turn?

I'm running on an Intel 1.8 Ghz CPU, with 7.4Gb of usable RAM, and only basic graphics - although I replaced the hard drive with a 1Tb Samsung SSD, which improved performance overall. It now processes a 1 day turn (in 1944, including some multi unit city fights) in less than 3 minutes.

[HansBolter]

I'm running an SSD as well, but I watch combat animations so it takes considerably longer then 3 minutes.

When the altered scenario, with the conglomerate ship types converted back to individual ships, failed to load I wondered if it might be hanging due to an insufficient number of commanders to be randomly assigned to so many ships and not a lack of processing power to be able to handle the database, but it wasn't an issue I wanted to even try investigating, let alone correct.
It was at that point that I re-edited the ships back into conglomerates.

I'm still a fledgling with the editor.

[Ian R]

I understood the exe could create more officers with randomised values if needed. I once had an RN chap appear with an air rating of 90. I forget the name, but he wasn't in the scenario database.